Introduction
In
the last post I argued that there is not just one problem of evil; rather there
are a variety of problems of evil. In the next two posts I’m going to consider
the biblical view of evil and some ways that Christian theists have responded
to God’s reason or justification for allowing evil in the world. Such reasons
are called theodicies. [1] This post will focus on the biblical view of evil
and its origin.
Biblical View of Evil
As
noted in part one of this series, evil comes in two distinct forms: moral evil
and natural evil. As discussed, moral evil has to do with evil caused by an
agent; whereas, natural evils are the kinds of evils that occur apart from the
actions of an agent, such as tragedies brought about by tsunamis or mudslides.
Typically, Christian orthodoxy has linked natural evil to moral evil based on
the fall of humanity in Genesis 3.
In
Genesis 1 we read that all that God created was “good,” and then, on day six,
it was “very good.” Yet, only a few chapters later, we see that humans have
rebelled against God, bringing about several curses. For the woman, she will
have increased pain in child bearing and that she will be ruled by her husband
(Gen 3:16). For the man, the ground is now cursed, and he will have to eat from
it “through painful toil” (3:17, NIV). No longer will humans have access to the
food from the garden, but the ground will “produce thorns and thistles” and he
will have to “eat the plants of the field” (3:18, NIV). Some have taken the
cursing of the ground to indicate that before the fall of humanity, there were
no natural occurrences that cause death (human or animal), such as earthquakes,
tsunamis, or mudslides, nor were there things like disease. These are all a
result of the fall. Those taking this view often couple it with Romans 8:20-21,
which says, “creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but
by the will of the one who subjected it,” and that one day “the creation itself
will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious
freedom of the children of God” (NIV). Natural evils are directly connected to
the fall.
We
also see in the Genesis 3 passage that human death entered the picture. In
3:19-20 God tells the man, “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are
and to dust you will return” (NIV). This verse, along with Gen 2:16-17 and God’s
words in 3:22 that the first man “must not be allowed to reach out his hand and
take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever,” indicate that
before the fall the possibility of immortality was available to humans. What
about animal death? Did animals die before the fall? Some have extrapolated
from Genesis 3:17-18, which speaks of the curse on the ground, Romans 8:20-21,
which suggests that creation is in “bondage to decay,” and Romans 5:12, which
indicates that all death entered the world through sin, that animals did not
die before the fall. They also argue that before the fall there was no
predation. All animals were herbivores (Gen 1:29-30).
Not
everyone, however, takes the above view—which, for our purposes, I’ll call the
combined package the Cosmic Fall view (CFV)—particularly with respect to animal
death and the occurrence of natural disasters. Most Evangelical Christians
recognize that human death is a direct result of the fall, but not all agree
that animal death is. Further some reject the direct connection between natural
disasters and sin. Let’s begin with natural disasters and sin, followed by
animal death.
Dissenters
from CFV find it difficult, exegetically, to extrapolate things like hurricanes
and other natural occurrences which cause natural evil from texts that speak of
the ground’s having been cursed, especially since we are told what the ground’s
being cursed looks like, “painful toil” in human labor and the ground’s
production of “thorns and thistles” in man’s attempt to have food.
But
what of the passage from Romans 8 that speaks of creation as being “subjected
to frustration” and needing liberation from its “bondage to decay”? There are,
however, some ambiguities in this passage. First, the text says that “creation
was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one
who subjected it” (8:20, NIV). We are never told “who” it is that subjects creation
to this frustration. It seems, however, that the likely candidate is God,
since, in the next part of the passage we are given the “why” it was subjected
to frustration, “in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its
bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
God is the only one who could liberate and bring freedom to creation. Such a
feat is impossible for anyone else.
Second,
Paul seems to be making a distinction between creation’s being “subjected to
frustration” and its need for liberation from “its bondage to decay.” In other
words, the reason that creation was “subjected to frustration” was for
creation’s liberation and freedom from “its bondage to decay.” Perhaps one
might link creation’s being “subjected to frustration” with God’s cursing the
ground or to the fall itself (however, this is far from obvious, from the text,
at least), since it seems that the subjecting of creation to frustration
happened at some past time; however, it is less clear with decay? When did the
“bondage to decay” begin? Was it when Adam and Eve sinned (before God cursed
the ground) or was it at the beginning of creation? If Paul is distinguishing
between “frustration” and “bondage to decay,” then clearly the frustration took
place after the “bondage to decay” was set in motion. Perhaps N.T. Wright
states it most clearly for the dissenters of CFV when he says of Romans 8:21,
“It is a picture in which the corruption and futility of creation itself,
created good but doomed to decay, is seen as a kind of slavery, so that,
creation, too, needs to experience its exodus, its liberation.” [2] In another
place, Wright stresses, “When we read Romans 8, we find Paul affirming the
whole of creation is groaning in travail as it longs for its redemption.
Creation is good, but it is not God. it is beautiful, but its beauty is at
present transient.” [3] Wright’s point is that creation, as magnificent as it
is, has been subject to decay from its beginning. That’s part of the transience
and vicissitudes of a creation that is “not God.” In other words, creation in
its very nature is finite. As finite, the creation breaks down and is in the
process of decay. But where does human sin come in? The effects of human sin
exacerbate the already-decaying creation order. It is through human agency (or
because of human sin) that God has subjected creation to frustration. Working
from Genesis 9:1-2, Alan Hayward makes the following point with respect to
creation’s groaning:
This grim prophecy in Genesis 9 has
been amply fulfilled. The presence of our race has proved to be an ecological
disaster for Planet Earth. Scattered over the world there are many man-made
deserts, where once there was fruitful soil teeming with life. Thousands of
species have been made extinct as a direct consequence of man’s selfish
exploitation of Nature, and thousands more are threatened. Ecologists warn us
that if go on like this for another century we shall ruin the earth completely.
No Wonder, then, that
‘the whole creation has been groaning’ under the ‘futility’ of man’s behavior,
as Paul put it. [4]
Non-adherents
of CFV have other reasons for rejecting the belief that decay is a result of
the fall. For example, many have suggested that, based on the geological
records, plant and animal death was abundant long before humans entered the
scene (they give other reasons, such as, the second law of thermodynamics,
etc.). But doesn’t this contradict Romans 5:12, which suggests that all death
entered through Adam? “Not so fast,” says the dissenter of CFV. Suggesting that
all death came through sin is based on a dubious reading of Romans 5:12. The
passage reads as follows: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one
man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned” (NIV). On this point, I’ll quote Hebrew and biblical scholar, Michael
Heiser:
The
text says absolutely nothing about animals—zero. Whatever happened at the Fall
resulted in a transition from (apparent) immortality to mortality for humankind. Animal life has to be read
into the text for the purpose of promoting a specific view of the fossil
record. Nothing is said of any other life than human kind, so we should not
infer anything about it. The verse cannot be used to justify the idea that animal
life (and of course plant life) could not and did not die before the Fall. To
argue anything in the that regard from this verse is to insert it into the
verse. [5]
But
what of Genesis 1:29-30, which indicates that there was no predation and that
both humans and animals were vegetarians. Tim Chaffey (a personal friend of
mine) and Jason Lyle ask, “Why would God command a vegetarian diet for all
living creatures?” [6] The answer is obvious suggest Chaffey and Lisle, it is
“because death was not a part of the original creation.” [7] The dissenter will
retort back that obviously plant death occurred (which indicates decay, at
least in the modern sense) before sin entered the world. But further, while God
“gives” (not commands, pace Chaffey
and Lyle) vegetables and plant life to animals and humans to eat, the text does
not require a reading that suggests that vegetables were all that animals ate,
nor does it state, anywhere in Scripture, that animals transitioned from
herbivores to carnivores. Another argument given is that Adam must have known
what death was, since God told Adam that he would surely die in the day that he
eats from the tree (Gen 2:17). A final argument non-adherents of CFV give is
that the Bible seems to suggest that predation was ordained by God. Take for
example Psalm 104:21, “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from
God” (NIV) or God’s words to Job,
Do
you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they
crouch in their dens or lie in what in a thicket? Who provides food for the
raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?” (Job
38:39-41, NIV)
Does
the hawk take flight by your wisdom and spread his wings toward the south? Does
the eagle soar at your command and build his nest on high? He dwells on a cliff
and stays there at night; a rocky crag is his stronghold. From there he seeks
out his food; his eyes detect it from afar. His young ones feast on blood, and
where the slain are, there is he. (Job 39:27-28, NIV)
What the hawk does is by God’s wisdom and the eagle by His
command. Creation order, then, works together so as God ordained it.
Dissenters of CFV question the CFV view of creation. Often,
those holding to CFV understand the original creation as perfection; however, non-adherents
to CFV will argue that Scripture only says that creation is (very) good. Even
after the fall, God never changed his declaration that creation is good.
Interestingly enough, Paul recognizes this and affirms the above point on the
goodness of creation in a passage pertaining to the eating of certain kinds of
food: “For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it
is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and
prayer” (1 Tim 4:4-5, NIV).
Concluding Thoughts
It seems that the above discussion only scratches the
surface pertaining to the Bible’s teaching on evil and its origin. As noted
throughout, there are (at least) two views with respect to the ramifications and
extent of the fall on creation order. Throughout I labeled the one group CFV
and the other dissenters of the CFV. Perhaps, the latter label is not fair. Many
of these folk would affirm that the fall of humanity affects every aspect of
creation to some extent or another. So, maybe it would be more befitting to
call this group the Limited Cosmic Fall View (LCFV). They would affirm that
human death occurred as a result of the fall. Yet, physical occurrences that
might lead to natural evils, e.g., tsunamis and earthquakes, and animal death were
originally a part of the natural created order and not a result of the fall.
As shown throughout the discussion, there are many issues
involved, and I barely even scratched the surface with respect to moral evil.
Nor did I consider what the Bible has to say about providence and evil. These
are much more than can be discussed in a single post. Nevertheless, note the
following issues that need further attention and consideration when discussing
the biblical view and origin of evil:
1) If God created the world good, does “goodness” imply that
there was no such thing as animal death before the fall? What do we mean by
“good”? Is animal death and predation an evil? If so, how can it properly be
said that creation is good? Further, if natural evils such as animal death (if
animal death is an evil) did occur before the fall, then would God not be held
responsible (a serious objection the LCFV view will need to consider). Should
good be taken to imply “perfection of creation” or does it mean that things are
in some sense in “right order, the way in which God designed them?”
2) To what extent did the introduction of human sin affect
the created order? Did human death bring about such things as earthquakes,
tsunamis, animal death, disease, and other natural evils?
3) Another issue that will need consideration, but was not
discussed here, is how one ought to interpret creation. Is creation recent or
old? This debate has been going on for a long time (pun intended). There are
many interpretations of Genesis 1. How one interprets Genesis 1-3 has certain
ramifications for other issues pertaining to the problem of evil. A similar
issue is whether evolution is a viable option for Christians. Some evangelicals
are moving that direction, but does the biblical text allow for such an
interpretation? [8]
4) What connection is there between moral evils and natural
evils? Are all occurrences of evils a result of human sin (e.g., the death of a
deer caught in a forest fire that was caused by a lightning strike)?
5) Another issue that needs consideration is whether all
pain is evil. Take for example, God told Eve, “I will greatly increase your
pains in childbearing” (NIV). This seems to indicate that pain was a part of
the pre-fall creation, and that the pain experienced through child birth would
be increased. How can we think more analytically and cautiously about pain?
Conclusion:
As noted in the introduction, the next blog post will take
into consideration various theodicies that Christian theists have given to
offer a justification as to why a good God allows pain, suffering, and evil in
the world.
Notes
[1]
Anthony C. Thiselton. “theodicy,” in A
Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2002), 306.
[2]
N. T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son
of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 258.
[3]
N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope:
Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New
York: HaperOne, 2008), 224.
[4]
Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution:
Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible (Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany House, 1985), 183.
[5]
Michael Heiser, “Romans 5:12: What it Says and What it Doesn’t Say (Part 1),
April 6, 2009 <http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/04/romans-512-%E2%80%93-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-say-part-1/>
[Accessed December 15, 2012]
[6]
Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle, Old-Earth
Creationism on Trial: The Verdict is In (Green Forest, AR: Master Books,
2008), 28.
[7]
Ibid.
[8] For a good introduction to this issue, I would highly
recommend a book by J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1999). This text covers each of the three major views: 1) Young Earth
Creationism; 2) Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism; and 3) Theistic Evolution.
But note that there are a variety of ways of interpreting Genesis 1:
Pre-creation judgment theory; Gap Theory; Divine Revelation theory; and Divine
Framework Hypothesis, just to name a few.
No comments:
Post a Comment